From nobody Thu Mar 3 13:47:04 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ospf@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ospf@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 398F11B2C6D; Thu, 3 Mar 2016 13:47:03 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -14.507 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.507 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.006, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id k4aZxAy2usyO; Thu, 3 Mar 2016 13:47:00 -0800 (PST) Received: from alln-iport-6.cisco.com (alln-iport-6.cisco.com [173.37.142.93]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 660DA1B2C6A; Thu, 3 Mar 2016 13:47:00 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=11068; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1457041620; x=1458251220; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:mime-version; bh=yraYjn9NFMfkwXREqDTu8wgbzzNUWlY+r5A7Ja76R8k=; b=Iuqtzx8FfF6zPSRtTLKeHVGYQahaW5NDbAqhpOLPOR/uJ30wwiIgLBjx dZv0o5wt0REDJmiTuHAGU184O45cm29tspmDOH+TVljq6+35cxbaPBmWP dNRM/57LRKc0LEB3shTWePUJql0/QGot3igIT2gQdwYKz5dFOuP5gb1Ne Y=; X-Files: iesg-writeup-draft-ietf-ospf-sbfd-discriminator.txt : 7375 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0DNAgBbsNhW/4cNJK1TCoM6UnO4GYITD?= =?us-ascii?q?oFqHYYQgRY4FAEBAQEBAQFkJ4RII0gDBBkBGjACBDAXEAQBGwWIEw6sB453AQE?= =?us-ascii?q?BAQEBAQMBAQEBFAiOXAYLAYMegToFjS2FSoQlAYMIilqBYIREiFNpjWMBHgFDg?= =?us-ascii?q?jCBNIhTBxcHFn4BAQE?= X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.22,533,1449532800"; d="txt'?scan'208";a="245303906" Received: from alln-core-2.cisco.com ([173.36.13.135]) by alln-iport-6.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA; 03 Mar 2016 21:46:58 +0000 Received: from XCH-ALN-013.cisco.com (xch-aln-013.cisco.com [173.36.7.23]) by alln-core-2.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id u23LkwMO018581 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Thu, 3 Mar 2016 21:46:58 GMT Received: from xch-rcd-015.cisco.com (173.37.102.25) by XCH-ALN-013.cisco.com (173.36.7.23) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1104.5; Thu, 3 Mar 2016 15:46:58 -0600 Received: from xch-rcd-015.cisco.com ([173.37.102.25]) by XCH-RCD-015.cisco.com ([173.37.102.25]) with mapi id 15.00.1104.009; Thu, 3 Mar 2016 15:46:58 -0600 From: "Acee Lindem (acee)" To: IETF Secretariat , OSPF WG List , "draft-ietf-ospf-sbfd-discriminator@ietf.org" , OSPF ADs Thread-Topic: Publication Request for "OSPF extensions to advertise S-BFD Target Discriminator" Thread-Index: AQHRdZY1hb1IjWDIRUGh2wggk7QC4Q== Date: Thu, 3 Mar 2016 21:46:57 +0000 Message-ID: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: yes X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1 x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted x-originating-ip: [10.116.152.199] Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="_002_D2FE1AFF4F2B5aceeciscocom_" MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: Subject: [OSPF] Publication Request for "OSPF extensions to advertise S-BFD Target Discriminator" X-BeenThere: ospf@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: The Official IETF OSPG WG Mailing List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 03 Mar 2016 21:47:03 -0000 --_002_D2FE1AFF4F2B5aceeciscocom_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-ID: <416F7EFAA666A544936C078EA8BCB811@emea.cisco.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 UGxlYXNlIHB1Ymxpc2ggZHJhZnQtaWV0Zi1vc3BmLXNiZmQtZGlzY3JpbWluYXRvci0wMy50eHQg YXMgYSBzdGFuZGFyZHMNCnRyYWNrIGRvY3VtZW50Lg0KDQpJIGFtIHRoZSBkb2N1bWVudCBzaGVw aGVyZCBhbmQgaGF2ZSBhdHRhY2hlZCB0aGUgSUVTRyB3cml0ZXVwLg0KDQpUaGFua3MsDQpBY2Vl DQoNCg== --_002_D2FE1AFF4F2B5aceeciscocom_ Content-Type: text/plain; name="iesg-writeup-draft-ietf-ospf-sbfd-discriminator.txt" Content-Description: iesg-writeup-draft-ietf-ospf-sbfd-discriminator.txt Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="iesg-writeup-draft-ietf-ospf-sbfd-discriminator.txt"; size=7375; creation-date="Thu, 03 Mar 2016 21:46:57 GMT"; modification-date="Thu, 03 Mar 2016 21:46:57 GMT" Content-ID: <5A9D844B0F521642A625CD2142E1E753@emea.cisco.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 KDEpIFdoYXQgdHlwZSBvZiBSRkMgaXMgYmVpbmcgcmVxdWVzdGVkIChCQ1AsIFByb3Bvc2VkIFN0 YW5kYXJkLCBJbnRlcm5ldA0KICAgIFN0YW5kYXJkLCBJbmZvcm1hdGlvbmFsLCBFeHBlcmltZW50 YWwsIG9yIEhpc3RvcmljKT8gV2h5IGlzIHRoaXMgdGhlDQogICAgcHJvcGVyIHR5cGUgb2YgUkZD PyBJcyB0aGlzIHR5cGUgb2YgUkZDIGluZGljYXRlZCBpbiB0aGUgdGl0bGUgcGFnZQ0KICAgIGhl YWRlcj8NCg0KICAgICAgQSBTdGFuZGFyZHMgVHJhY2sgUkZDIGlzIGJlaW5nIHJlcXVlc3RlZCBh bmQgaXMgaW5kaWNhdGVkIGluIHRoZQ0KICAgICAgdGl0bGUgcGFnZSBoZWFkZXIuDQoNCigyKSBU aGUgSUVTRyBhcHByb3ZhbCBhbm5vdW5jZW1lbnQgaW5jbHVkZXMgYSBEb2N1bWVudCBBbm5vdW5j ZW1lbnQNCiAgICBXcml0ZS1VcC4gIFBsZWFzZSBwcm92aWRlIHN1Y2ggYSBEb2N1bWVudCBBbm5v dW5jZW1lbnQgV3JpdGUtVXAuDQogICAgUmVjZW50IGV4YW1wbGVzIGNhbiBiZSBmb3VuZCBpbiB0 aGUgIkFjdGlvbiIgYW5ub3VuY2VtZW50cyBmb3INCiAgICBhcHByb3ZlZCBkb2N1bWVudHMuIFRo ZSBhcHByb3ZhbCBhbm5vdW5jZW1lbnQgY29udGFpbnMgdGhlIGZvbGxvd2luZw0KICAgIHNlY3Rp b25zOg0KDQpUZWNobmljYWwgU3VtbWFyeToNCg0KICAgICAgVGhpcyBkb2N1bWVudCBzcGVjaWZp ZXMgZXh0ZW5zaW9ucyB0byBPU1BGIFJvdXRlciBJbmZvcm1hdGlvbmFsDQogICAgICAoUkkpIHRv IGZvciBhbiBPU1BGIHJvdXRlciB0byBhZHZlcnRpc2UgaXRzIFNlYW1sZXNzIEJGRCANCiAgICAg IGRpc2NyaW1pbmF0b3JzLiBUaGUgc2NvcGUgb2YgYW4gYWR2ZXJ0aXNlbWVudCBjYW4gYmUgYW4g T1NQRiBhcmVhDQogICAgICBvciB0aGUgZW50aXJlIE9TUEYgcm91dGluZyBkb21haW4uIFRoZSBh cmNoaXRlY3R1cmUgZm9yIHNlYW1sZXNzDQogICAgICBCRkQgaXMgZGVzY3JpYmVkIGluICJTZWFt bGVzcyBCaWRpcmVjdGlvbmFsIEZvcndhcmRpbmcgRGV0ZWN0aW9uIA0KICAgICAgKFMtQkZEKSIg LSBkcmFmdC1pZXRmLWJmZC1zZWFtbGVzcy1iYXNlLTA1Lg0KDQoNCldvcmtpbmcgR3JvdXAgU3Vt bWFyeToNCg0KICAgICAgVGhlIGRvY3VtZW50IGlzIGFuIGFkanVuY3QgdG8gdGhlIFNlYW1sZXNz LUJGRCB3b3JrIGJlaW5nIGRvbmUgaW4NCiAgICAgIHRoZSBCRkQgV0cuIEl0IGlzIHZlcnkgc3Ry YWlnaHQtZm9yd2FyZCBhbmQgdGhlcmUgaGFzbid0IGJlZW4gDQogICAgICBtYW55IGNvbW1lbnRz LiANCg0KICAgICAgRHVyaW5nIFdHIGxhc3QgY2FsbCwgaXQgd2FzIG5vdGVkIHRoYXQgdGhlIGJl aGF2aW9yIG11c3QgYmUgDQogICAgICBzcGVjaWZpZWQgd2hlbiB0aGVyZSBhcmUgbXVsdGlwbGUg aW5zdGFuY2VzIG9mIHRoZSBTLUJGRCANCiAgICAgIGRpc2NyaW1pbmF0b3IgVExWLiBUaGlzIGNv bW1lbnQgd2FzIHN1YnNlcXVlbnRseSBoYW5kbGVkLiANCg0KICAgICAgVGhlIHF1ZXN0aW9uIG9m IG11bHRpcGxlIFMtQkZEIGRpc2NyaW1pbmF0b3JzIHdhcyBhbHNvIGRpc2N1c3NlZA0KICAgICAg aW4gcmVmZXJlbmNlIHRvIHRoZSBiYXNlIFNlYW1sZXNzIEJGRCBkcmFmdC4gVGhpcyByZXN1bHRz IGluDQogICAgICBtdWNoIGRpc2N1c3Npb24gd2l0aCBhcHByb3ByaWF0ZSB0ZXh0IGFkZGVkIHRv IHRoZSBiYXNlIGRvY3VtZW50DQogICAgICBpbmRpY2F0aW5nIHRoYXQgdGhpcyB3YXMgYmFzaWNh bGx5IGEgbG9jYWwgbWF0dGVyIGFuZCBvdXRzaWRlIHRoZQ0KICAgICAgc2NvcGUgb2YgdGhlIHN0 YW5kYXJkLiANCg0KRG9jdW1lbnQgUXVhbGl0eToNCg0KICAgICAgVGhpcyBkb2N1bWVudCBoYXMg YmVlbiBhIFdHIGRvY3VtZW50IGZvciBzb21lIHRpbWUgYW5kIGlzIGJlaW5nDQogICAgICBhZHZh bmNlZCBub3cgdGhhdCB0aGUgc2VhbWxlc3MgQkZEIHdvcmsgaXMgYmVpbmcgYWR2YW5jZWQgaW4g DQogICAgICB0aGUgQkZEIHdvcmtpbmcgZ3JvdXAuDQoNClBlcnNvbm5lbDoNCg0KICAgICAgQWNl ZSBMaW5kZW0gaXMgdGhlIERvY3VtZW50IFNoZXBoZXJkLg0KICAgICAgQWxpYSBBdGxhcyBpcyB0 aGUgUmVzcG9uc2libGUgQXJlYSBEaXJlY3Rvci4NCg0KKDMpIEJyaWVmbHkgZGVzY3JpYmUgdGhl IHJldmlldyBvZiB0aGlzIGRvY3VtZW50IHRoYXQgd2FzIHBlcmZvcm1lZCBieQ0KICAgIHRoZSBE b2N1bWVudCBTaGVwaGVyZC4gSWYgdGhpcyB2ZXJzaW9uIG9mIHRoZSBkb2N1bWVudCBpcyBub3Qg cmVhZHkNCiAgICBmb3IgcHVibGljYXRpb24sIHBsZWFzZSBleHBsYWluIHdoeSB0aGUgZG9jdW1l bnQgaXMgYmVpbmcgZm9yd2FyZGVkDQogICAgdG8gdGhlIElFU0cuDQoNCiAgICAgVGhlIGRvY3Vt ZW50IHNoZXBoZXJkIGhhcyByZXZpZXdlZCBlYWNoIHJldmlzaW9uIG9mIHRoZSBkb2N1bWVudA0K ICAgICBhbmQgZm9sbG93ZWQgdGhlIGRpc2N1c3Npb24gb24gdGhlIE9TUEYgbWFpbGluZyBsaXN0 LiANCg0KDQooNCkgRG9lcyB0aGUgZG9jdW1lbnQgU2hlcGhlcmQgaGF2ZSBhbnkgY29uY2VybnMg YWJvdXQgdGhlIGRlcHRoIG9yDQogICAgYnJlYWR0aCBvZiB0aGUgcmV2aWV3cyB0aGF0IGhhdmUg YmVlbiBwZXJmb3JtZWQ/DQoNCiAgICAgIE5vLg0KDQooNSkgRG8gcG9ydGlvbnMgb2YgdGhlIGRv Y3VtZW50IG5lZWQgcmV2aWV3IGZyb20gYSBwYXJ0aWN1bGFyIG9yIGZyb20NCiAgICBicm9hZGVy IHBlcnNwZWN0aXZlLCBlLmcuLCBzZWN1cml0eSwgb3BlcmF0aW9uYWwgY29tcGxleGl0eSwgQUFB LA0KICAgIEROUywgREhDUCwgWE1MLCBvciBpbnRlcm5hdGlvbmFsaXphdGlvbj8gSWYgc28sIGRl c2NyaWJlIHRoZSByZXZpZXcNCiAgICB0aGF0IHRvb2sgcGxhY2UuDQoNCiAgICAgIE5vLg0KDQoo NikgRGVzY3JpYmUgYW55IHNwZWNpZmljIGNvbmNlcm5zIG9yIGlzc3VlcyB0aGF0IHRoZSBEb2N1 bWVudCBTaGVwaGVyZA0KICAgIGhhcyB3aXRoIHRoaXMgZG9jdW1lbnQgdGhhdCB0aGUgUmVzcG9u c2libGUgQXJlYSBEaXJlY3RvciBhbmQvb3INCiAgICB0aGUgSUVTRyBzaG91bGQgYmUgYXdhcmUg b2Y/IEZvciBleGFtcGxlLCBwZXJoYXBzIGhlIG9yIHNoZSBpcw0KICAgIHVuY29tZm9ydGFibGUg d2l0aCBjZXJ0YWluIHBhcnRzIG9mIHRoZSBkb2N1bWVudCwgb3IgaGFzIGNvbmNlcm5zDQogICAg d2hldGhlciB0aGVyZSByZWFsbHkgaXMgYSBuZWVkIGZvciBpdC4gSW4gYW55IGV2ZW50LCBpZiB0 aGUgV0cgaGFzDQogICAgZGlzY3Vzc2VkIHRob3NlIGlzc3VlcyBhbmQgaGFzIGluZGljYXRlZCB0 aGF0IGl0IHN0aWxsIHdpc2hlcyB0bw0KICAgIGFkdmFuY2UgdGhlIGRvY3VtZW50LCBkZXRhaWwg dGhvc2UgY29uY2VybnMgaGVyZS4NCg0KICAgICAgTm9uZS4NCg0KKDcpIEhhcyBlYWNoIGF1dGhv ciBjb25maXJtZWQgdGhhdCBhbnkgYW5kIGFsbCBhcHByb3ByaWF0ZSBJUFINCiAgICBkaXNjbG9z dXJlcyByZXF1aXJlZCBmb3IgZnVsbCBjb25mb3JtYW5jZSB3aXRoIHRoZSBwcm92aXNpb25zIG9m IEJDUA0KICAgIDc4IGFuZCBCQ1AgNzkgaGF2ZSBhbHJlYWR5IGJlZW4gZmlsZWQuIElmIG5vdCwg ZXhwbGFpbiB3aHk/DQoNCiAgICAgWWVzLg0KDQooOCkgSGFzIGFuIElQUiBkaXNjbG9zdXJlIGJl ZW4gZmlsZWQgdGhhdCByZWZlcmVuY2VzIHRoaXMgZG9jdW1lbnQ/IElmDQogICAgc28sIHN1bW1h cml6ZSBhbnkgV0cgZGlzY3Vzc2lvbiBhbmQgY29uY2x1c2lvbiByZWdhcmRpbmcgdGhlIElQUg0K ICAgIGRpc2Nsb3N1cmVzLg0KDQogICAgICBOby4NCg0KKDkpIEhvdyBzb2xpZCBpcyB0aGUgV0cg Y29uc2Vuc3VzIGJlaGluZCB0aGlzIGRvY3VtZW50PyBEb2VzIGl0DQogICAgcmVwcmVzZW50IHRo ZSBzdHJvbmcgY29uY3VycmVuY2Ugb2YgYSBmZXcgaW5kaXZpZHVhbHMsIHdpdGggb3RoZXJzDQog ICAgYmVpbmcgc2lsZW50LCBvciBkb2VzIHRoZSBXRyBhcyBhIHdob2xlIHVuZGVyc3RhbmQgYW5k IGFncmVlIHdpdGggaXQ/DQoNCiAgICAgIFRoZXJlIGlzIGNvbnNlbnN1cyBmcm9tIHRoZSBXRyBh bmQgb3RoZXJzIG91dHNpZGUgdGhlIFdHIHRoYXQNCiAgICAgIHRoaXMgZG9jdW1lbnQgY2FuIHBy b2dyZXNzLiBJdCBjb21wbGVtZW50cyB3b3JrIGRvbmUgb24gU2VhbWxlc3MNCiAgICAgIEJGRCBp biB0aGUgQkZEIFdvcmtpbmcgR3JvdXAuIA0KDQooMTApIEhhcyBhbnlvbmUgdGhyZWF0ZW5lZCBh biBhcHBlYWwgb3Igb3RoZXJ3aXNlIGluZGljYXRlZCBleHRyZW1lDQogICAgIGRpc2NvbnRlbnQ/ ICBJZiBzbywgcGxlYXNlIHN1bW1hcmlzZSB0aGUgYXJlYXMgb2YgY29uZmxpY3QgaW4NCiAgICAg c2VwYXJhdGUgZW1haWwgbWVzc2FnZXMgdG8gdGhlIFJlc3BvbnNpYmxlIEFyZWEgRGlyZWN0b3Iu IChJdA0KICAgICBzaG91bGQgYmUgaW4gYSBzZXBhcmF0ZSBlbWFpbCBiZWNhdXNlIHRoaXMgcXVl c3Rpb25uYWlyZSBpcw0KICAgICBwdWJsaWNseSBhdmFpbGFibGUuKQ0KDQogICAgICBOby4NCg0K KDExKSBJZGVudGlmeSBhbnkgSUQgbml0cyB0aGUgRG9jdW1lbnQgU2hlcGhlcmQgaGFzIGZvdW5k IGluIHRoaXMNCiAgICAgZG9jdW1lbnQuICAoU2VlIGh0dHA6Ly93d3cuaWV0Zi5vcmcvdG9vbHMv aWRuaXRzLyBhbmQgdGhlDQogICAgIEludGVybmV0LURyYWZ0cyBDaGVja2xpc3QpLiAgQm9pbGVy cGxhdGUgY2hlY2tzIGFyZSBub3QgZW5vdWdoOw0KICAgICB0aGlzIGNoZWNrIG5lZWRzIHRvIGJl IHRob3JvdWdoLg0KDQogICAgICBOaXRzIGFyZSBhbGwgcmVzb2x2ZWQuIA0KDQooMTIpIERlc2Ny aWJlIGhvdyB0aGUgZG9jdW1lbnQgbWVldHMgYW55IHJlcXVpcmVkIGZvcm1hbCByZXZpZXcNCiAg ICAgY3JpdGVyaWEsIHN1Y2ggYXMgdGhlIE1JQiBEb2N0b3IsIG1lZGlhIHR5cGUsIGFuZCBVUkkg dHlwZSByZXZpZXdzLg0KDQogICAgICBOb3QgYXBwbGljYWJsZS4NCg0KKDEzKSBIYXZlIGFsbCBy ZWZlcmVuY2VzIHdpdGhpbiB0aGlzIGRvY3VtZW50IGJlZW4gaWRlbnRpZmllZCBhcyBlaXRoZXIN CiAgICAgbm9ybWF0aXZlIG9yIGluZm9ybWF0aXZlPw0KDQogICAgICBZZXMuDQoNCigxNCkgQXJl IHRoZXJlIG5vcm1hdGl2ZSByZWZlcmVuY2VzIHRvIGRvY3VtZW50cyB0aGF0IGFyZSBub3QgcmVh ZHkgZm9yDQogICAgIGFkdmFuY2VtZW50IG9yIGFyZSBvdGhlcndpc2UgaW4gYW4gdW5jbGVhciBz dGF0ZT8gSWYgc3VjaA0KICAgICBub3JtYXRpdmUgcmVmZXJlbmNlcyBleGlzdCwgd2hhdCBpcyB0 aGUgcGxhbiBmb3IgdGhlaXIgY29tcGxldGlvbj8NCiAgDQogICAgICBOby4gVGhlIFJGQyA0OTcw IEJJUyBkcmFmdCBpcyBvbiB0aGUgUkZDIEVkaXRvcidzIHF1ZXVlLg0KDQooMTUpIEFyZSB0aGVy ZSBkb3dud2FyZCBub3JtYXRpdmUgcmVmZXJlbmNlcyByZWZlcmVuY2VzIChzZWUgUkZDIDM5Njcp Pw0KICAgICBJZiBzbywgbGlzdCB0aGVzZSBkb3dud2FyZCByZWZlcmVuY2VzIHRvIHN1cHBvcnQg dGhlIEFyZWEgRGlyZWN0b3INCiAgICAgaW4gdGhlIExhc3QgQ2FsbCBwcm9jZWR1cmUuDQoNCiAg ICAgIE5vLg0KDQooMTYpIFdpbGwgcHVibGljYXRpb24gb2YgdGhpcyBkb2N1bWVudCBjaGFuZ2Ug dGhlIHN0YXR1cyBvZiBhbnkgZXhpc3RpbmcNCiAgICAgUkZDcz8gIEFyZSB0aG9zZSBSRkNzIGxp c3RlZCBvbiB0aGUgdGl0bGUgcGFnZSBoZWFkZXIsIGxpc3RlZCBpbg0KICAgICB0aGUgYWJzdHJh Y3QsIGFuZCBkaXNjdXNzZWQgaW4gdGhlIGludHJvZHVjdGlvbj8gSWYgdGhlIFJGQ3MgYXJlDQog ICAgIG5vdCBsaXN0ZWQgaW4gdGhlIEFic3RyYWN0IGFuZCBJbnRyb2R1Y3Rpb24sIGV4cGxhaW4g d2h5LCBhbmQgcG9pbnQNCiAgICAgdG8gdGhlIHBhcnQgb2YgdGhlIGRvY3VtZW50IHdoZXJlIHRo ZSByZWxhdGlvbnNoaXAgb2YgdGhpcyBkb2N1bWVudA0KICAgICB0byB0aGUgb3RoZXIgUkZDcyBp cyBkaXNjdXNzZWQuIElmIHRoaXMgaW5mb3JtYXRpb24gaXMgbm90IGluIHRoZQ0KICAgICBkb2N1 bWVudCwgZXhwbGFpbiB3aHkgdGhlIFdHIGNvbnNpZGVycyBpdCB1bm5lY2Vzc2FyeS4NCg0KICAg ICAgTm8uDQoNCigxNykgRGVzY3JpYmUgdGhlIERvY3VtZW50IFNoZXBoZXJkJ3MgcmV2aWV3IG9m IHRoZSBJQU5BIGNvbnNpZGVyYXRpb25zDQogICAgIHNlY3Rpb24sIGVzcGVjaWFsbHkgd2l0aCBy ZWdhcmQgdG8gaXRzIGNvbnNpc3RlbmN5IHdpdGggdGhlIGJvZHkgb2YNCiAgICAgdGhlIGRvY3Vt ZW50LiAgQ29uZmlybSB0aGF0IGFsbCBwcm90b2NvbCBleHRlbnNpb25zIHRoYXQgdGhlDQogICAg IGRvY3VtZW50IG1ha2VzIGFyZSBhc3NvY2lhdGVkIHdpdGggdGhlIGFwcHJvcHJpYXRlIHJlc2Vy dmF0aW9ucyBpbg0KICAgICBJQU5BIHJlZ2lzdHJpZXMuIENvbmZpcm0gdGhhdCBhbnkgcmVmZXJl bmNlZCBJQU5BIHJlZ2lzdHJpZXMgaGF2ZQ0KICAgICBiZWVuIGNsZWFybHkgaWRlbnRpZmllZC4g Q29uZmlybSB0aGF0IG5ld2x5IGNyZWF0ZWQgSUFOQSByZWdpc3RyaWVzDQogICAgIGluY2x1ZGUg YSBkZXRhaWxlZCBzcGVjaWZpY2F0aW9uIG9mIHRoZSBpbml0aWFsIGNvbnRlbnRzIGZvciB0aGUN CiAgICAgcmVnaXN0cnksIHRoYXQgYWxsb2NhdGlvbnMgcHJvY2VkdXJlcyBmb3IgZnV0dXJlIHJl Z2lzdHJhdGlvbnMgYXJlDQogICAgIGRlZmluZWQsIGFuZCBhIHJlYXNvbmFibGUgbmFtZSBmb3Ig dGhlIG5ldyByZWdpc3RyeSBoYXMgYmVlbg0KICAgICBzdWdnZXN0ZWQgKHNlZSBSRkMgNTIyNiku DQogIA0KICAgICAgVGhpcyBkb2N1bWVudCBkZWZpbmVzIGEgc2luZ2xlIG5ldyBPU1BGIFJvdXRl ciBJbmZvcm1hdGlvbiBMU0EgDQogICAgICBUTFYsIFMtQkZEIERlc2NyaW1pbmF0b3IgVExWLCB0 byB0aGUgT1NQRiBSb3V0ZXIgSW5mb3JtYXRpb24gKFJJKQ0KICAgICAgVExWcyBSZWdpc3RyeS4g VGhlcmUgc2hvdWxkbid0IGJlIGFueSBjb25mdXNpb24gd2l0aCB0aGlzIElBTkENCiAgICAgIGFj dGlvbi4NCg0KKDE4KSBMaXN0IGFueSBuZXcgSUFOQSByZWdpc3RyaWVzIHRoYXQgcmVxdWlyZSBF eHBlcnQgUmV2aWV3IGZvciBmdXR1cmUNCiAgICAgYWxsb2NhdGlvbnMuIFByb3ZpZGUgYW55IHB1 YmxpYyBndWlkYW5jZSB0aGF0IHRoZSBJRVNHIHdvdWxkIGZpbmQNCiAgICAgdXNlZnVsIGluIHNl bGVjdGluZyB0aGUgSUFOQSBFeHBlcnRzIGZvciB0aGVzZSBuZXcgcmVnaXN0cmllcy4NCg0KICAg ICAgTm9uZS4gDQoNCigxOSkgRGVzY3JpYmUgcmV2aWV3cyBhbmQgYXV0b21hdGVkIGNoZWNrcyBw ZXJmb3JtZWQgYnkgdGhlIERvY3VtZW50DQogICAgIFNoZXBoZXJkIHRvIHZhbGlkYXRlIHNlY3Rp b25zIG9mIHRoZSBkb2N1bWVudCB3cml0dGVuIGluIGEgZm9ybWFsDQogICAgIGxhbmd1YWdlLCBz dWNoIGFzIFhNTCBjb2RlLCBCTkYgcnVsZXMsIE1JQiBkZWZpbml0aW9ucywgZXRjLg0KIA0KICAg ICAgTm90IGFwcGxpY2FibGUuDQoNCg== --_002_D2FE1AFF4F2B5aceeciscocom_-- From nobody Thu Mar 3 13:55:13 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ospf@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ospf@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5C4581B2C95; Thu, 3 Mar 2016 13:55:10 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -14.506 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.506 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.006, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 8DKDCg7MKgsp; Thu, 3 Mar 2016 13:55:06 -0800 (PST) Received: from rcdn-iport-4.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-4.cisco.com [173.37.86.75]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BD93F1B2CA3; Thu, 3 Mar 2016 13:55:05 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=47974; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1457042105; x=1458251705; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=CCEMuuy8fSsNjF0aQONsMy3iJDopkcg+0cEbCrhfzQE=; b=VqaBbB9hkJELMmIutr8AHmZxdUKgDpwVbydY4mTmTRds4ld8YEvXUStb 7td+6vgThoVG7Lea4C26ODk2I7PuR8BJIEZO1YYm2HMK/I8CubPG/BOb8 dlQuY9EDhfAjpsvp0ObThxj4cL1YYo0RhdJH2St9zMwn+hiaq4k7VcU5E k=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0ALAgCFsdhW/5pdJa1TCoJuTFJtBrosA?= =?us-ascii?q?Q2BaoYPAoEyOBQBAQEBAQEBZCeEQQEBAQQtTBACAQgRAwEBASEBBgcyFAkIAQE?= =?us-ascii?q?EAQ0FiCG7DQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBARWGGIQ8hA43ExYChAIFkneEJ?= =?us-ascii?q?QGNYoFghESIU4V2iFYBHgEBQoNkaogkfgEBAQ?= X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos; i="5.22,533,1449532800"; d="scan'208,217"; a="79254586" Received: from rcdn-core-3.cisco.com ([173.37.93.154]) by rcdn-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 03 Mar 2016 21:55:04 +0000 Received: from XCH-RCD-009.cisco.com (xch-rcd-009.cisco.com [173.37.102.19]) by rcdn-core-3.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id u23Lt4I5013874 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Thu, 3 Mar 2016 21:55:04 GMT Received: from xch-aln-006.cisco.com (173.36.7.16) by XCH-RCD-009.cisco.com (173.37.102.19) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1104.5; Thu, 3 Mar 2016 15:55:03 -0600 Received: from xch-aln-006.cisco.com ([173.36.7.16]) by XCH-ALN-006.cisco.com ([173.36.7.16]) with mapi id 15.00.1104.009; Thu, 3 Mar 2016 15:55:03 -0600 From: "Derek Man-Kit Yeung (myeung)" To: Alan Davey , "draft-ietf-ospf-yang@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: draft-ietf-ospf-yang-03 questions and doubts Thread-Index: AdE3NLGjjtMGuql0QfiSt+s9ulh9zgoPjYmAAiVQNuADX5obgA== Date: Thu, 3 Mar 2016 21:55:03 +0000 Message-ID: References: In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.6.1.160122 x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1 x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted x-originating-ip: [10.154.57.123] Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_D2FDEE967531Dmyeungciscocom_" MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: Cc: OSPF WG List Subject: Re: [OSPF] draft-ietf-ospf-yang-03 questions and doubts X-BeenThere: ospf@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: The Official IETF OSPG WG Mailing List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 03 Mar 2016 21:55:10 -0000 --_000_D2FDEE967531Dmyeungciscocom_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Alan, Please see DY> below. From: Alan Davey > Date: Thursday, February 18, 2016 at 3:28 AM To: myeung >, "draft-ietf-ospf-ya= ng@ietf.org" > Cc: OSPF WG List > Subject: RE: draft-ietf-ospf-yang-03 questions and doubts Hi Derek Thank you for your response, and apologies for the delay in getting back to= you. Have you considered distinct ospfv3-interface-operation and ospfv2-i= nterface-operation? Or even distinct =93container ospfv2=94 and =93contain= er ospfv3=94? DY> No, we do not plan to have explicit ospfv2 and ospfv3 container. We use= d when statement or if-feature to take care of OSPFv2 vs OSPFv3 specific fi= elds in general. There are a number of differences between the Interface Data Structure defi= ned in RFC2328 and in RFC5340. In particular, the following. Do you plan = to add all of these differences to the interface-operation grouping? - DR and BDR identification. o As you wrote, section 9 of RFC2328 specifies that the Interface Data St= ructure includes the Router ID and IP address for the DR and BDR. o Section 4.1.2 of RFC5340 does not specify how to identify the DR and BD= R, but given the OSPFv3 protocol, it seems reasonable that the router ID an= d interface ID would be stored. DY> In OSPFv3, the DR/BDR is still identified by a router ID. The interface= ID of the DR is used when generating LSA and by itself do not identify the= DR/BDR. DY> Given the DR/BDR router ID/ip address, one can locate the corresponding= neighbor information and find the interface ID there. DY> So we are not going the duplicate the interface ID of the DR in the int= erface container again. - Section 4.1.2 of RFC5340 specifies a number of objects that do n= ot appear in the RFC2328 version of the Interface Data Structure, as follow= s. o Interface ID. o Instance ID. DY> The two above will be added. It is missing now. To be clear. It is the = interface ID of the local router, not the one of the DR, for the interface= . o List of LSAs with link-local scope. DY> The model already have link-local LSA database. o List of IPv6 prefixes configured for the attached link. DY> Understood that it is mentioned in the OSPFv3 RFC. DY> However, looking at a few implementations there is no explicit display = of such information with the interface related OSPF show command. DY> The IPv6 prefixes (or IPv4 prefix in OSPFv2) advertised by the router c= ould be found already either from the interface module (IPv4/IPv6 augment) = or from the LSA database itself. DY> Extracting it again in OSPF model interface operation data seems redund= ant. DY> We don=92t think we need it in the base model, but vendors could augmen= t it if they find it useful. Thanks, - Derek Regards Alan From: Derek Man-Kit Yeung (myeung) [mailto:myeung@cisco.com] Sent: 04 February 2016 19:39 To: Alan Davey = >; draft-ietf-ospf-yang@ietf.org Cc: ospf@ietf.org Subject: Re: draft-ietf-ospf-yang-03 questions and doubts Hi Alan, Thanks for the comments. As you have pointed out, there are OSPFv3 specific fields missing in the mo= del now. For example, instance ID and interface ID. We will add them in the= next update. As for the DR, DR is conceptually one of the neighbor. In OSPFv2, the DR's router ID and IP address are used in protocol operation= . While in OSPFv3, the DR's router ID and interface ID are used in protocol o= peration. According to OSPFv2 and OSPFv3 RFC, the interface structure should keep bot= h the DR's router ID and IP address. We have the following in the current model. grouping interface-operation { leaf dr { type inet:ipv4-address; description "Designated Router (DR) IP address."; } } grouping neighbor-operation { leaf dr { type yang:dotted-quad; description "Designated Router."; } } To better match the RFC and accommodate both OSPFv2 and OSPFv3 in a cleaner= way, we plan to make the following changes. grouping interface-operation { leaf dr-router-id { type yang:dotted-quad; description "Designated Router (DR) router ID."; } leaf dr-ip-address { type inet:ip-address; description "Designated Router (DR) IP address."; } } grouping neighbor-operation { leaf dr-router-id { type yang:dotted-quad; description "Neighbor's Designated Router (DR) router ID."; } leaf dr-ip-address { type inet:ip-address; description "Neighbor's Designated Router (DR) IP address."; } } If one need the DR's interface ID in the OSPFv3 case, it could be found by = locating the neighbor entry for the DR and get the interface ID (To be adde= d) field there. Comments welcome. Thanks, - Derek From: Alan Davey > Date: Tuesday, December 15, 2015 8:23 AM To: "draft-ietf-ospf-yang@ietf.org" <= draft-ietf-ospf-yang@ietf.org> Cc: "ospf@ietf.org" > Subject: draft-ietf-ospf-yang-03 questions and doubts Folks I have a doubt about draft-ietf-ospf-yang-03. Please let me know your thou= ghts on the following. The text is OSPFv2-specific in places. I think that it would be better to = define separate top-level groupings and containers for OSPFv2 and OSPFv3 an= d define common groupings and containers, where possible, that are used by = both. For example, grouping interface-operation contains the following, which is = incorrect for OSPFv3. - leaf dr with type ipv4-address - leaf bdr with type ipv4-address. I think that it would be better to define something along the following lin= es. - ospfv3-interface-operation { o uses interface-config o uses ospf-common-interface-operation o leaf dr { =A7 type if:interface-ref =A7 description: =B7 "The remote interface ID used by the Designated Route= r on =B7 this link. This is the interface index of the interf= ace local to the DR."; o etc - ospfv2-interface-operation { o uses interface-config o uses ospf-common-interface-operation o leaf dr { =A7 type inet:ipv4-address; =A7 description "Designated Router (DR) IP address."; o etc. Regards Alan Davey --_000_D2FDEE967531Dmyeungciscocom_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="Windows-1252" Content-ID: <2E967B6AEA7B084FB4A48A832D4A559A@emea.cisco.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi Alan,

Please see DY> below.

From: Alan Davey <Alan.Davey@metaswitch.com>
Date: Thursday, February 18, 2016 a= t 3:28 AM
To: myeung <myeung@cisco.com>, "draft-ietf-ospf-yang@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-ospf-yang@ietf.org= >
Cc: OSPF WG List <ospf@ietf.org>
Subject: RE: draft-ietf-ospf-yang-0= 3 questions and doubts

Hi Derek

 

Thank you for your res= ponse, and apologies for the delay in getting back to you.  Have you c= onsidered distinct ospfv3-interface-operation and ospfv2-interface-operatio= n?  Or even distinct =93container ospfv2=94 and =93container ospfv3=94?

 
DY> No, we do not plan to have explicit ospfv2 and ospfv3 container= . We used when statement or if-feature to take care of OSPFv2 vs OSPFv3 spe= cific fields in general.

There are a number of = differences between the Interface Data Structure defined in RFC2328 and in = RFC5340.  In particular, the following.  Do you plan to add all o= f these differences to the interface-operation grouping?

 

-          DR and BDR= identification.

o   As you wro= te, section 9 of RFC2328 specifies that the Interface Data Structure includ= es the Router ID and IP address for the DR and BDR.

o   Section 4.= 1.2 of RFC5340 does not specify how to identify the DR and BDR, but given t= he OSPFv3 protocol, it seems reasonable that the router ID and interface ID= would be stored.

DY> In OSPFv3, the DR/BDR is still identified by a router ID. The i= nterface ID of the DR is used when generating LSA and by itself do not iden= tify the DR/BDR.
DY> Given the DR/BDR router ID/ip address, one can locate the corre= sponding neighbor information and find the interface ID there.
DY> So we are not going the duplicate the interface ID of the DR in= the interface container again.

-          Section 4.= 1.2 of RFC5340 specifies a number of objects that do not appear in the RFC2= 328 version of the Interface Data Structure, as follows.<= /p>

o   Interface = ID.

o   Instance I= D.

DY> The two above will be added. It is missing now. To be clear. It= is the interface ID of the local router, not the one of the DR,  for = the interface.

o   List of LS= As with link-local scope.

DY> The model already have link-local LSA database.

o   List of IP= v6 prefixes configured for the attached link.

DY> Understood that it is mentioned in the OSPFv3 RFC. 
DY> However, looking at a few implementations there is no explicit = display of such information with the interface related OSPF show command.
DY> The IPv6 prefixes (or IPv4 prefix in OSPFv2) advertised by the = router could be found already either from the interface module (IPv4/IPv6 a= ugment) or from the LSA database itself.
DY> Extracting it again in OSPF model interface operation data seem= s redundant.
DY> We don=92t think we need it in the base model, but vendors coul= d augment it if they find it useful.

Thanks,
- Derek

 

Regards

Alan=

 

From: Derek Man-Kit Yeung (myeung) [= mailto:myeung@cisco.com]
Sent: 04 February 2016 19:39
To: Alan Davey <Alan= .Davey@metaswitch.com>; draft-ietf-ospf-yang@ietf.= org
Cc: ospf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: draft-ietf-ospf-yang-03 questions and doubts=

 

Hi Alan= ,

&n= bsp;

Thanks = for the comments.

As you = have pointed out, there are OSPFv3 specific fields missing in the model now= . For example, instance ID and interface ID. We will add them in the next u= pdate.

&n= bsp;

As for = the DR, DR is conceptually one of the neighbor. 

In OSPF= v2, the DR's router ID and IP address are used in protocol operation.<= /o:p>

While i= n OSPFv3, the DR's router ID and interface ID are used in protocol operatio= n.

Accordi= ng to OSPFv2 and OSPFv3 RFC, the interface structure should keep both the D= R's router ID and IP address.

&n= bsp;

We have= the following in the current model.

&n= bsp;

  = grouping interface-operation {

  =   leaf dr {

  =     type inet:ipv4-address;

  =     description "Designated Router (DR) IP address.";

  =   }

  = }

  = grouping neighbor-operation {

  =   leaf dr {

  =     type yang:dotted-quad;

  =     description

  =       "Designated Router.";

  =   }

  = }

&n= bsp;

To bett= er match the RFC and accommodate both OSPFv2 and OSPFv3 in a cleaner way, w= e plan to make the following changes.

&n= bsp;

  = grouping interface-operation {

  =   leaf dr-router-id {

  =     type yang:dotted-quad;

  =     description

  =       "Designated Router (DR) router ID.";

  =   }

  =   leaf dr-ip-address {

  =     type inet:ip-address;

  =     description "Designated Router (DR) IP address.";

  =   }

  = }

  = grouping neighbor-operation {

  =   leaf dr-router-id {

  =     type yang:dotted-quad;

  =     description

  =       "Neighbor's Designated Router (DR) router ID.&quo= t;;

  =   }

  =   leaf dr-ip-address {

  =     type inet:ip-address;

  =     description "Neighbor's Designated Router (DR) IP addres= s.";

  =   }

  = }

&n= bsp;

If one = need the DR's interface ID in the OSPFv3 case, it could be found by locatin= g the neighbor entry for the DR and get the interface ID (To be added) fiel= d there.

&n= bsp;

Comment= s welcome.

&n= bsp;

Thanks,=

- Derek=

&n= bsp;

From: Alan Davey <Alan.Davey@metaswitch.com>
Date: Tuesday, December 15, 2015 8:23 AM
To: "draft-iet= f-ospf-yang@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-ospf-yang@ietf.org>
Cc: "ospf@ietf.org" &= lt;ospf@ietf.org>
Subject: draft-ietf-ospf-yang-03 questions and doubts

&n= bsp;

Folks<= /p>

 =

I have a doubt about dra= ft-ietf-ospf-yang-03.  Please let me know your thoughts on the followi= ng.

 =

The text is OSPFv2-speci= fic in places.  I think that it would be better to define separate top= -level groupings and containers for OSPFv2 and OSPFv3 and define common gro= upings and containers, where possible, that are used by both.

 =

For example, grouping in= terface-operation contains the following, which is incorrect for OSPFv3.

 =

-          leaf dr with= type ipv4-address

-          leaf bdr wit= h type ipv4-address.

 

I think that it would be= better to define something along the following lines.

 =

-          ospfv3-inter= face-operation {

o   uses interfa= ce-config

o   uses ospf-co= mmon-interface-operation

o   leaf dr {

= =A7  type if:inte= rface-ref

= =A7  description:=

=B7           =         "The remote interface = ID used by the Designated Router on

=B7           =         this link.  This is th= e interface index of the interface local to the DR.";

o   etc

-          ospfv2-inter= face-operation {

o   uses interfa= ce-config

o   uses ospf-co= mmon-interface-operation

o   leaf dr {

= =A7    =        type inet:ipv4-address;

= =A7    =        description "Designated Rout= er (DR) IP address.";

o   etc.

 =

Regards

Alan Davey

 =

--_000_D2FDEE967531Dmyeungciscocom_-- From nobody Sat Mar 5 12:46:39 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ospf@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ospf@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 38E741B36C0 for ; Sat, 5 Mar 2016 12:46:38 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -14.502 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.502 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id XEuRR2E38XDk for ; Sat, 5 Mar 2016 12:46:37 -0800 (PST) Received: from alln-iport-8.cisco.com (alln-iport-8.cisco.com [173.37.142.95]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1A5651B36BF for ; Sat, 5 Mar 2016 12:46:37 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=490; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1457210797; x=1458420397; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:content-id: content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=3DMnOGW1VspJrGkZ1ZXcRylrh+mt8pv5nc7VjIzs3ZM=; b=QOw1wd1tPkFcxG9M2aOSmlnFHhqbQGBbbjN3XJ+FzaTANyZDGLRbt0rY /kK4lsp4RhxSpYHNXkkxaxD0xVoRzpK+CrcMoiY0gi9IxcokQqN7Jc+It E6aX1RgL5YtfFJZXQfs+D7SUccfgxa477OXb+Q+G/ChpH0qeHA6ITfckd 8=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0D7AQDcRNtW/5ldJa1dgzqBRbgnghMBD?= =?us-ascii?q?YFphi2BBzgUAQEBAQEBAWQnhEgdBhFXASICJgIEMBUSBIg1oGKPXY5jAQEIAh5?= =?us-ascii?q?7kROBOgWXKgGNbIFNARWERIhTjlQBHgEBQoNkiSx+AQEB?= X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.22,542,1449532800"; d="scan'208";a="245843694" Received: from rcdn-core-2.cisco.com ([173.37.93.153]) by alln-iport-8.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 05 Mar 2016 20:46:36 +0000 Received: from XCH-ALN-012.cisco.com (xch-aln-012.cisco.com [173.36.7.22]) by rcdn-core-2.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id u25KkZnR010302 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL) for ; Sat, 5 Mar 2016 20:46:36 GMT Received: from xch-rcd-015.cisco.com (173.37.102.25) by XCH-ALN-012.cisco.com (173.36.7.22) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1104.5; Sat, 5 Mar 2016 14:46:35 -0600 Received: from xch-rcd-015.cisco.com ([173.37.102.25]) by XCH-RCD-015.cisco.com ([173.37.102.25]) with mapi id 15.00.1104.009; Sat, 5 Mar 2016 14:46:35 -0600 From: "Acee Lindem (acee)" To: OSPF WG List Thread-Topic: IETF 95 Call for Agenda Items Thread-Index: AQHRdyAbR2NFZNAtXEOnW9tgXbK4FA== Date: Sat, 5 Mar 2016 20:46:35 +0000 Message-ID: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1 x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted x-originating-ip: [10.116.152.199] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-ID: <008B6B8B771FBA479AD0220590208467@emea.cisco.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: Subject: [OSPF] IETF 95 Call for Agenda Items X-BeenThere: ospf@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: The Official IETF OSPG WG Mailing List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 05 Mar 2016 20:46:38 -0000 DQpUaGUgcHJlbGltaW5hcnkgSUVURi05MyBhZ2VuZGEgaGFzIGJlZW4gcG9zdGVkIGFuZCBvc3Bm LXdnIGN1cnJlbnRseSBoYXMNCmEgMiBob3VyIHNsb3Qgb24gVGh1cnNkYXkgYXQgMTQ6MDAsIHRo aXMgaXMgc3ViamVjdCB0byBjaGFuZ2UuDQoNCklmIHlvdSB3b3VsZCBsaWtlIGFuIGFnZW5kYSBz bG90IGZvciB0aGUgdXBjb21pbmcgT1NQRiBXRyBtZWV0aW5nDQphdCBJRVRGIDkzIGluIEJ1ZW5v cyBBaXJlcywgcGxlYXNlIHNlbmQgdGhlIGNoYWlycyBhIHJlcXVlc3QgYWxvbmcgd2l0aA0KYW4g ZXN0aW1hdGUgb2YgaG93IG11Y2ggdGltZSBpcyBuZWVkZWQuDQoNClRoYW5rcywNCkFiaGF5IGFu ZCBBY2VlIA0KDQoNCg== From nobody Sat Mar 5 12:48:42 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ospf@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ospf@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5DADB1B36C4 for ; Sat, 5 Mar 2016 12:48:41 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -14.502 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.502 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id P-fq5BY7EiyL for ; Sat, 5 Mar 2016 12:48:40 -0800 (PST) Received: from rcdn-iport-2.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-2.cisco.com [173.37.86.73]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2BC231B36C3 for ; Sat, 5 Mar 2016 12:48:40 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=486; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1457210920; x=1458420520; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:content-id: content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=s+BXhiRJvTgj4GWkEccaLKilG5GIJmz7D4YmRJOs/bk=; b=ByfThUOD9xEyLMbMPe+0mLhYftaqyevcJTvFw9ZmWIxviLPz2wYxMWXA RseDkHnk/44Wzsy3wHNNsdUdkP7eHAQL4g3XtWb8huYGeFCjmkUYBVpWs SwvZ3l93fIupkQUvlAMVy8lVmVqM19BaC8lBQw4NFasICNtt+vQNL0de/ w=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0D7AQDcRNtW/5tdJa1dgzqBRbgnghMBD?= =?us-ascii?q?YFphi2BBzgUAQEBAQEBAWQnhEgdBhFXASICJgIEMBUSBIg1oGKPXY5jAQEIAh5?= =?us-ascii?q?7kROBOgWXKgGNbIFNARWERIhTjlQBHgEBQoNkiSx+AQEB?= X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.22,542,1449532800"; d="scan'208";a="82717943" Received: from rcdn-core-4.cisco.com ([173.37.93.155]) by rcdn-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 05 Mar 2016 20:48:39 +0000 Received: from XCH-ALN-012.cisco.com (xch-aln-012.cisco.com [173.36.7.22]) by rcdn-core-4.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id u25KmdZv029111 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL) for ; Sat, 5 Mar 2016 20:48:39 GMT Received: from xch-rcd-015.cisco.com (173.37.102.25) by XCH-ALN-012.cisco.com (173.36.7.22) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1104.5; Sat, 5 Mar 2016 14:48:38 -0600 Received: from xch-rcd-015.cisco.com ([173.37.102.25]) by XCH-RCD-015.cisco.com ([173.37.102.25]) with mapi id 15.00.1104.009; Sat, 5 Mar 2016 14:48:38 -0600 From: "Acee Lindem (acee)" To: OSPF WG List Thread-Topic: IETF 95 Call for Agenda Items (Corrected) Thread-Index: AQHRdyBk6bLodearq0W7+Olh2qXeyw== Date: Sat, 5 Mar 2016 20:48:38 +0000 Message-ID: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1 x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted x-originating-ip: [10.116.152.199] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: Subject: [OSPF] IETF 95 Call for Agenda Items (Corrected) X-BeenThere: ospf@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: The Official IETF OSPG WG Mailing List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 05 Mar 2016 20:48:41 -0000 VGhlIHByZWxpbWluYXJ5IElFVEYtOTUgYWdlbmRhIGhhcyBiZWVuIHBvc3RlZCBhbmQgb3NwZi13 ZyBjdXJyZW50bHkgaGFzDQphIDIgaG91ciBzbG90IG9uIFRodXJzZGF5IGF0IDE0OjAwLCB0aGlz IGlzIHN1YmplY3QgdG8gY2hhbmdlLg0KDQpJZiB5b3Ugd291bGQgbGlrZSBhbiBhZ2VuZGEgc2xv dCBmb3IgdGhlIHVwY29taW5nIE9TUEYgV0cgbWVldGluZw0KYXQgSUVURiA5MyBpbiBCdWVub3Mg QWlyZXMsIHBsZWFzZSBzZW5kIHRoZSBjaGFpcnMgYSByZXF1ZXN0IGFsb25nIHdpdGgNCmFuIGVz dGltYXRlIG9mIGhvdyBtdWNoIHRpbWUgaXMgbmVlZGVkLg0KDQpUaGFua3MsDQpBYmhheSBhbmQg QWNlZSANCg0KDQo= From nobody Thu Mar 10 02:58:05 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ospf@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ospf@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DE79112D692; Thu, 10 Mar 2016 02:58:03 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.7 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id m-RdxcQlyfBz; Thu, 10 Mar 2016 02:58:02 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-wm0-x22d.google.com (mail-wm0-x22d.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c09::22d]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CC29212D690; Thu, 10 Mar 2016 02:57:58 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-wm0-x22d.google.com with SMTP id l68so23231420wml.1; Thu, 10 Mar 2016 02:57:58 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=references:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding :message-id:cc:from:subject:date:to; bh=G7QhK+bG0iplCEhcAcJkHrrtpAig5SQsJmVdSB9SviA=; b=U4LjjZP7QJHXVqRSLc+DbPkcNwze82y8pP1IeYlfOePeAyinK+MVUAESYBHyz2xzEr IfKs0eV5ELuVCXjOIem8KCEC+RApjdZROR8QyGSPh1dy7yMJZ3MOdLDPlVWCVZqrR7o1 TPlK80HGk3PGIh82HD6+dZfq5wtFkHUuhvozdhZQ7aYJAFO7QiKkF5Abjhzui3CFIBHh Dt1FmBpcMWAOlFbmRybUFbgTuoyaqqMMfXBhO1Z8caLy7O6OgTgD6WIjGI8yiEAv8xOF qe9hKWhD/GS9qiOJUJiPql0YGPkxnfDLsBUmsgWmyHGBbv3ywY5O1GdccRdyfCpB4D1j DlYg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:references:mime-version:in-reply-to :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:cc:from:subject:date:to; bh=G7QhK+bG0iplCEhcAcJkHrrtpAig5SQsJmVdSB9SviA=; b=EJnF9oCMwOL9TkuCbWDtP/eLhLxKrcFxAR5xN6FF/+Z7UnIiFI+v/tqRf5Cqk1cg+F kBhWSqehT8W5pID86B3fE8ZV2q6yAceUNebUU1Z8jq+FAeTzQHAnrXQvahNr6bvg8Idq Jdh9O28RNvmquLY/uWcagq7WDIuCnrFjzd36b8mYooNpQ9HsOGVfXlFRk5Fe0DckXwwh an3svggzg7J2g1tCoA6uh0C73AmZcF4CoFAqJIsDYozTy4ByG026zUBlz2roQ3oTPx1G dj1rTGXX0zZT/rsC3L4ICB8wI523J8KrAvIo55p9uz3ikuK92oIHVXIwaeWOK/JlGYkr bFTQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AD7BkJK8+YHEl6g3vbRImWiXaqQiZJDZ9eLc3HkXELLsjZ4ExCiinQuIUeKcQUWHCfEHAg== X-Received: by 10.28.17.141 with SMTP id 135mr3312350wmr.48.1457607477239; Thu, 10 Mar 2016 02:57:57 -0800 (PST) Received: from [100.69.236.176] ([80.215.196.46]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id o128sm2928755wmb.19.2016.03.10.02.57.56 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Thu, 10 Mar 2016 02:57:56 -0800 (PST) References: <73BFDDFFF499304EB26FE5FDEF20F78850695C8B@blreml510-mbx.china.huawei.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0) In-Reply-To: <73BFDDFFF499304EB26FE5FDEF20F78850695C8B@blreml510-mbx.china.huawei.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (12B466) From: Gregory Cauchie Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2016 11:57:55 +0100 To: Veerendranatha Reddy Vallem Archived-At: Cc: OSPF WG List , "draft-ietf-ospf-ttz@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [OSPF] OSPF Topology Transparent Zone IPR Call X-BeenThere: ospf@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: The Official IETF OSPG WG Mailing List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2016 10:58:04 -0000 I am not aware of any related IPRs that have not been disclosed. Best Regards, -- Greg > Le 29 janv. 2016 =C3=A0 13:32, Veerendranatha Reddy Vallem a =C3=A9crit : >=20 >=20 > I am not aware of any additional IPR. >=20 > Thanks & Regards, > Veerendranath >=20 > -----Original Message----- > From: OSPF [mailto:ospf-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Acee Lindem (acee) > Sent: 18 January 2016 02:06 > To: draft-ietf-ospf-ttz@ietf.org > Cc: OSPF WG List > Subject: [OSPF] OSPF Topology Transparent Zone IPR Call >=20 > Authors, >=20 > Please indicate whether you are aware of any relevant IPR and if so, wheth= er it has been disclosed. >=20 > This IPR has been disclosed: https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/2701/ >=20 > Thanks, > Acee >=20 > _______________________________________________ > OSPF mailing list > OSPF@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf >=20 > _______________________________________________ > OSPF mailing list > OSPF@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf From nobody Fri Mar 11 15:29:27 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ospf@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ospf@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7910E12DD65 for ; Fri, 11 Mar 2016 15:29:25 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -14.521 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.521 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id YykF6Q1nlLr3 for ; Fri, 11 Mar 2016 15:29:24 -0800 (PST) Received: from rcdn-iport-8.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-8.cisco.com [173.37.86.79]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1450212D677 for ; Fri, 11 Mar 2016 15:29:24 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=1322; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1457738964; x=1458948564; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:references:in-reply-to: content-id:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=2Yb6DMx1KAvOV/Py5Y6Xh5idY+3PlssHRT+d0RemD2M=; b=I7GJU/ZuPB1qxWnBJI6ko5NSu+ho1/N1P+NEf9ZQAbH53L25hJcAKBzI x2XShLVo4GnST1C5ZWPTY4DLALBbsG2n/qbS5GE0eLjyfNrCYSBEyG/FK 2Q0eEfncmM7yRbYxHi4z3Cd44re7KhABhgWyJSiB51IQ44G7TVM94chfk 8=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0D1AQAeVONW/5JdJa1egz6BPwa4FYIPA?= =?us-ascii?q?Q2BbYYNAhyBETgUAQEBAQEBAWQnhEIBAQQjEVUCAQgaAiYCAgIwFQYBBgMCBBO?= =?us-ascii?q?IJK4cjxwBAQEBAQEEAQEBAQEBGnyJXoc6gToFh1+FV4oNAY17jwJcjhQBHgEBQ?= =?us-ascii?q?oNkaolTfgEBAQ?= X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.24,321,1454976000"; d="scan'208";a="80224429" Received: from rcdn-core-10.cisco.com ([173.37.93.146]) by rcdn-iport-8.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 11 Mar 2016 23:29:23 +0000 Received: from XCH-RTP-014.cisco.com (xch-rtp-014.cisco.com [64.101.220.154]) by rcdn-core-10.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id u2BNTMld009556 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL) for ; Fri, 11 Mar 2016 23:29:23 GMT Received: from xch-rtp-015.cisco.com (64.101.220.155) by XCH-RTP-014.cisco.com (64.101.220.154) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1104.5; Fri, 11 Mar 2016 18:29:22 -0500 Received: from xch-rtp-015.cisco.com ([64.101.220.155]) by XCH-RTP-015.cisco.com ([64.101.220.155]) with mapi id 15.00.1104.009; Fri, 11 Mar 2016 18:29:22 -0500 From: "Acee Lindem (acee)" To: OSPF WG List Thread-Topic: ospf - Requested session has been scheduled for IETF 95 Thread-Index: AQHRe+qHkbjY4ZNGQE+I6+Wvddh8gp9U49GA Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2016 23:29:22 +0000 Message-ID: References: <20160311230527.15028.43983.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> In-Reply-To: <20160311230527.15028.43983.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1 x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted x-originating-ip: [10.116.152.199] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-ID: <4AA7769158B4EA4885AA6F32B4DFA271@emea.cisco.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: Subject: [OSPF] FW: ospf - Requested session has been scheduled for IETF 95 X-BeenThere: ospf@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: The Official IETF OSPG WG Mailing List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2016 23:29:25 -0000 QSByZW1pbmRlciB0byBzZW5kIHlvdXIgc2Vzc2lvbiByZXF1ZXN0cyB0byBBYmhheSBhbmQgSS4N ClRoYW5rcywNCkFjZWUgDQoNCk9uIDMvMTEvMTYsIDY6MDUgUE0sICIiSUVURiBTZWNyZXRhcmlh dCIiIDxhZ2VuZGFAaWV0Zi5vcmc+IHdyb3RlOg0KDQo+RGVhciBBY2VlIExpbmRlbSwNCj4NCj5U aGUgc2Vzc2lvbihzKSB0aGF0IHlvdSBoYXZlIHJlcXVlc3RlZCBoYXZlIGJlZW4gc2NoZWR1bGVk Lg0KPkJlbG93IGlzIHRoZSBzY2hlZHVsZWQgc2Vzc2lvbiBpbmZvcm1hdGlvbiBmb2xsb3dlZCBi eQ0KPnRoZSBvcmlnaW5hbCByZXF1ZXN0Lg0KPg0KPm9zcGYgU2Vzc2lvbiAxICgyOjAwOjAwKQ0K PiAgICBUaHVyc2RheSwgQWZ0ZXJub29uIFNlc3Npb24gSSAxNDAwLTE2MDANCj4gICAgUm9vbSBO YW1lOiBRdWVicmFjaG8gQSBzaXplOiA3NQ0KPiAgICAtLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0t LS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0NCj4gICAgDQo+DQo+DQo+UmVxdWVzdCBJbmZvcm1hdGlvbjoN Cj4NCj4NCj4tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0t LS0tLS0tLS0NCj5Xb3JraW5nIEdyb3VwIE5hbWU6IE9wZW4gU2hvcnRlc3QgUGF0aCBGaXJzdCBJ R1ANCj5BcmVhIE5hbWU6IFJvdXRpbmcgQXJlYQ0KPlNlc3Npb24gUmVxdWVzdGVyOiBBY2VlIExp bmRlbQ0KPg0KPk51bWJlciBvZiBTZXNzaW9uczogMQ0KPkxlbmd0aCBvZiBTZXNzaW9uKHMpOiAg MiBIb3Vycw0KPk51bWJlciBvZiBBdHRlbmRlZXM6IDUwDQo+Q29uZmxpY3RzIHRvIEF2b2lkOg0K PiBGaXJzdCBQcmlvcml0eTogYmllciBpZHIgbmV0bW9kIGlzaXMgc3ByaW5nIHBpbSBydGdhcmVh IHJ0Z3dnDQo+DQo+DQo+DQo+DQo+U3BlY2lhbCBSZXF1ZXN0czoNCj4gIA0KPi0tLS0tLS0tLS0t LS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLQ0KPg0KDQo= From nobody Fri Mar 11 16:07:10 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ospf@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ospf@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EC1B112DDEA; Fri, 11 Mar 2016 16:07:06 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -106.903 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.903 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 9YhspKKuZMYW; Fri, 11 Mar 2016 16:07:04 -0800 (PST) Received: from rfc-editor.org (rfc-editor.org [IPv6:2001:1900:3001:11::31]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2B55012DDE8; Fri, 11 Mar 2016 16:06:43 -0800 (PST) Received: by rfc-editor.org (Postfix, from userid 30) id C6525180003; Fri, 11 Mar 2016 16:06:19 -0800 (PST) To: ietf-announce@ietf.org, rfc-dist@rfc-editor.org X-PHP-Originating-Script: 1005:ams_util_lib.php From: rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org Message-Id: <20160312000619.C6525180003@rfc-editor.org> Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2016 16:06:19 -0800 (PST) Archived-At: Cc: drafts-update-ref@iana.org, ospf@ietf.org, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org Subject: [OSPF] RFC 7777 on Advertising Node Administrative Tags in OSPF X-BeenThere: ospf@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: The Official IETF OSPG WG Mailing List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 12 Mar 2016 00:07:07 -0000 A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries. RFC 7777 Title: Advertising Node Administrative Tags in OSPF Author: S. Hegde, R. Shakir, A. Smirnov, Z. Li, B. Decraene Status: Standards Track Stream: IETF Date: March 2016 Mailbox: shraddha@juniper.net, rjs@rob.sh, as@cisco.com, lizhenbin@huawei.com, bruno.decraene@orange.com Pages: 15 Characters: 33684 Updates/Obsoletes/SeeAlso: None I-D Tag: draft-ietf-ospf-node-admin-tag-09.txt URL: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7777 DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.17487/RFC7777 This document describes an extension to the OSPF protocol to add an optional operational capability that allows tagging and grouping of the nodes in an OSPF domain. This allows simplification, ease of management and control over route and path selection based on configured policies. This document describes an extension to the OSPF protocol to advertise node administrative tags. The node tags can be used to express and apply locally defined network policies, which are a very useful operational capability. Node tags may be used by either OSPF itself or other applications consuming information propagated via OSPF. This document describes the protocol extensions to disseminate node administrative tags to the OSPFv2 and OSPFv3 protocol. It provides example use cases of administrative node tags. This document is a product of the Open Shortest Path First IGP Working Group of the IETF. This is now a Proposed Standard. STANDARDS TRACK: This document specifies an Internet Standards Track protocol for the Internet community, and requests discussion and suggestions for improvements. Please refer to the current edition of the Official Internet Protocol Standards (https://www.rfc-editor.org/standards) for the standardization state and status of this protocol. Distribution of this memo is unlimited. This announcement is sent to the IETF-Announce and rfc-dist lists. To subscribe or unsubscribe, see https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce https://mailman.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-dist For searching the RFC series, see https://www.rfc-editor.org/search For downloading RFCs, see https://www.rfc-editor.org/retrieve/bulk Requests for special distribution should be addressed to either the author of the RFC in question, or to rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org. Unless specifically noted otherwise on the RFC itself, all RFCs are for unlimited distribution. The RFC Editor Team Association Management Solutions, LLC From nobody Mon Mar 14 07:44:15 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ospf@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ospf@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A2F1912DB43 for ; Mon, 14 Mar 2016 07:44:13 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -14.522 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.522 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id mmEdHV2CUi-l for ; Mon, 14 Mar 2016 07:44:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from alln-iport-3.cisco.com (alln-iport-3.cisco.com [173.37.142.90]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4BA1B12DB22 for ; Mon, 14 Mar 2016 07:40:42 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=452; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1457966442; x=1459176042; h=from:subject:to:message-id:date:mime-version: content-transfer-encoding; bh=VhKx2cI4DsCM4bfqmmsGA3rYwRFog7vJOWWWddPG9G0=; b=MbNCSAYzCrn/5Q7oGSNzVqvH+LNAJWd/LVjQShXf9MmnwKuA3aFNX7Eu uszHEDNYlq0U+Q2ywJWPwFkp7htfShKaI/XNcrXHOUclbQWgFFoXn19SS SiGx+8A8za7FdLYnwBk23Fy9i69nKv6vnQ26eG2RKao34H1tJ0TVvN4d0 Q=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0D/AQDbzOZW/5JdJa1dg0aoBwaTZwENg?= =?us-ascii?q?XCGAwEBgTc4FAEBAQEBAQFkHAuEZQYVQDYCBRYLAgsDAgECAUsNCAEBiCCcUI9?= =?us-ascii?q?djw4BAQEHAgEdfIRUjESBOgEEji2JHohghSCBTwEVhEmDA4Q5gRuOfR4BAUKEB?= =?us-ascii?q?ByLEQEBAQ?= X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.24,335,1454976000"; d="scan'208";a="248459910" Received: from rcdn-core-10.cisco.com ([173.37.93.146]) by alln-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 14 Mar 2016 14:40:41 +0000 Received: from [10.24.77.86] ([10.24.77.86]) by rcdn-core-10.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id u2EEefoT001561 for ; Mon, 14 Mar 2016 14:40:41 GMT From: Abhay Roy To: "ospf@ietf.org" Message-ID: <56E6CD6A.7040203@cisco.com> Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2016 07:40:42 -0700 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.11; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Archived-At: Subject: [OSPF] Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-ospf-transition-to-ospfv3 X-BeenThere: ospf@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: The Official IETF OSPG WG Mailing List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2016 14:44:14 -0000 All, We are starting working group last call on the subject document. This document defines a mechanism to use IPv4 to transport OSPFv3 packets, in order to facilitate transition from IPv4-only to IPv6 and dual-stack within a routing domain. Draft has been stable for a little while now. WGLC will end at 8am PST on 28th Mar 2016. Please review the document and send any final comments prior to the WGLC deadline. Regards, -Abhay From nobody Wed Mar 16 19:08:39 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ospf@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ospf@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 41BE312DAF1 for ; Wed, 16 Mar 2016 19:08:38 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -14.522 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.522 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id VQRzcxw3vySF for ; Wed, 16 Mar 2016 19:08:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rcdn-iport-6.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-6.cisco.com [173.37.86.77]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B824812DB00 for ; Wed, 16 Mar 2016 19:08:34 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=580; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1458180514; x=1459390114; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:content-id: content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=QxGAoOSjFalUUMTH9wkc/PRSHkFFvIIGiosg5hS8ZsM=; b=TkdlUdfrKbwtEOaQEZqAS6SpmCaFBignSyIB2zvwka4yy8/45T7bCQDC 7h4Xjx4Sh/eTV3PN8N9d/JVSeLmeG0a+iD9HhuhpyTl+t6d8tpz7TQbvv Xc5odU0HmbexMhAp/hKdeGBWVDHDuehALBohtxD7V6Qx/GGnJiJbwYcLc 8=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0BGBQASEepW/5hdJa1eg0aBR7oZgW+GK?= =?us-ascii?q?4EaORMBAQEBAQEBZCeESCMRVwEiAiYCBDAVEgSIOqE3j12PQgEBCAIBHXyRIoE?= =?us-ascii?q?6BZdRAY4AgU8BFYRJiFeOfgEhAUCDZYpPfgEBAQ?= X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.24,347,1454976000"; d="scan'208";a="83624056" Received: from rcdn-core-1.cisco.com ([173.37.93.152]) by rcdn-iport-6.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 17 Mar 2016 02:08:34 +0000 Received: from XCH-RTP-015.cisco.com (xch-rtp-015.cisco.com [64.101.220.155]) by rcdn-core-1.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id u2H28Xjj019684 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL) for ; Thu, 17 Mar 2016 02:08:33 GMT Received: from xch-rtp-015.cisco.com (64.101.220.155) by XCH-RTP-015.cisco.com (64.101.220.155) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1104.5; Wed, 16 Mar 2016 22:08:33 -0400 Received: from xch-rtp-015.cisco.com ([64.101.220.155]) by XCH-RTP-015.cisco.com ([64.101.220.155]) with mapi id 15.00.1104.009; Wed, 16 Mar 2016 22:08:33 -0400 From: "Acee Lindem (acee)" To: OSPF WG List Thread-Topic: WG Adoption Poll for "Using Operator-defined TLVs for Agile Service Deployment" Thread-Index: AQHRf/Ho6WRxQA5zQE2bUJRokiTbPw== Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2016 02:08:33 +0000 Message-ID: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1 x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted x-originating-ip: [10.116.152.196] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: Subject: [OSPF] WG Adoption Poll for "Using Operator-defined TLVs for Agile Service Deployment" X-BeenThere: ospf@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: The Official IETF OSPG WG Mailing List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2016 02:08:38 -0000 V2XigJl2ZSBkaXNjdXNzZWQgdGhpcyBkcmFmdCBhIG51bWJlciBvZiB0aW1lcy4gSW4gbXkgb3Bp bmlvbiwgaXQgc2VlbXMgbGlrZQ0KYSB1c2VmdWwgbWVjaGFuaXNtIGlmIG9uZSBlbnZpc2lvbnMg YSBnZW5lcmFsaXplZCBBUEkgYmV0d2VlbiBPU1BGIGFuZA0KdXNlciBhbmQgdGhpcmQtcGFydHkg YXBwbGljYXRpb25zIHRvIGNvbnZleSBhcHBsaWNhdGlvbi1zcGVjaWZpYw0KaW5mb3JtYXRpb24g bGVhcm5lZCBmcm9tIG90aGVyIE9TUEYgcm91dGVycy4gSW4gbWFueSByZXNwZWN0cywgdGhpcyBo YXMNCmFscmVhZHkgYmVlbiBlbnZpc2lvbmVkIGZvciBPU1BGIE5vZGUgVGFncy4gUGxlYXNlIGlu ZGljYXRlIHlvdXIgb3Bpbmlvbg0Kb24gdGhpcyBkcmFmdCBiZWZvcmUgTWFyY2ggMzFzdCwgMjAx Ni4NCg0KVGhhbmtzLA0KQWNlZQ0KDQo= From nobody Wed Mar 16 21:40:37 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ospf@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ospf@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4A57B12DAEF for ; Wed, 16 Mar 2016 21:40:35 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -14.522 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.522 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id SMSMXygkGtMi for ; Wed, 16 Mar 2016 21:40:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rcdn-iport-6.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-6.cisco.com [173.37.86.77]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 388A112DB2F for ; Wed, 16 Mar 2016 21:40:32 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=2866; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1458189632; x=1459399232; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:references:in-reply-to: content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=C3V83Y5ivAXoedu4RWnDuRSjRj98klZf9V7BOKE3CNs=; b=MQ430fAATYCXVJhCM1duXd36UfRHqPGpswslXY1/ilXsC8eXiJVKkEfH F+fQjjIe6dj9m+uC5puIU6ICpaHMFwHeSABQf6cv/6IT5sgemJ9bs7JAi 30zBp1GQADD3ACSVPIv5ij+MD000HfucG2vgU8mOQBqulm7Nmt/TVm+pr k=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0ABAgA4NOpW/5BdJa1eg0ZTbga6CwENg?= =?us-ascii?q?W8XCoVsAhyBHjgUAQEBAQEBAWQnhEEBAQEEAQEBIBE6FwQCAQgRBAEBAwIjAwI?= =?us-ascii?q?CAiULFAEICAIEARIIiB8OsQOPQwEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAREEfIUih?= =?us-ascii?q?ESHPIE6BZdSAY15gWyESYhXjwEBHgEBQoIwgTVqiWV+AQEB?= X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.24,348,1454976000"; d="scan'208";a="83653292" Received: from rcdn-core-8.cisco.com ([173.37.93.144]) by rcdn-iport-6.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 17 Mar 2016 04:40:31 +0000 Received: from XCH-RCD-013.cisco.com (xch-rcd-013.cisco.com [173.37.102.23]) by rcdn-core-8.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id u2H4eVMl026810 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL) for ; Thu, 17 Mar 2016 04:40:31 GMT Received: from xch-aln-001.cisco.com (173.36.7.11) by XCH-RCD-013.cisco.com (173.37.102.23) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1104.5; Wed, 16 Mar 2016 23:40:30 -0500 Received: from xch-aln-001.cisco.com ([173.36.7.11]) by XCH-ALN-001.cisco.com ([173.36.7.11]) with mapi id 15.00.1104.009; Wed, 16 Mar 2016 23:40:30 -0500 From: "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" To: "Acee Lindem (acee)" , OSPF WG List Thread-Topic: WG Adoption Poll for "Using Operator-defined TLVs for Agile Service Deployment" Thread-Index: AQHRf/Ho6WRxQA5zQE2bUJRokiTbP59dC0kg Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2016 04:40:30 +0000 Message-ID: References: In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted x-originating-ip: [10.24.92.7] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: Subject: Re: [OSPF] WG Adoption Poll for "Using Operator-defined TLVs for Agile Service Deployment" X-BeenThere: ospf@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: The Official IETF OSPG WG Mailing List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2016 04:40:35 -0000 TXkgb3BpbmlvbiBvZiB0aGUgZHJhZnQgaGFzIG5vdCBjaGFuZ2VkLg0KDQpJdCBpcyBkZWZpbmlu ZyBhIHdheSB0byB1dGlsaXplIE9TUEYgdG8gc2VuZCBhcHBsaWNhdGlvbiBpbmZvcm1hdGlvbiAt IHdoaWNoIGlzIG5vdCBzb21ldGhpbmcgdGhlIHByb3RvY29sIHNob3VsZCBiZSB1c2VkIHRvIGRv Lg0KRnVydGhlciwgaXQgbGVhdmVzIGRlZmluaXRpb24gb2YgdGhlIG5ldyBjb2RlcG9pbnRzIGFu ZCBmb3JtYXRzIG9mIHRoZSBpbmZvcm1hdGlvbiBhZHZlcnRpc2VkIGNvbXBsZXRlbHkgdW5zcGVj aWZpZWQgLSB0aGUgbGF0ZXN0IGRyYWZ0IHJldmlzaW9uIHN0YXRlczoNCg0KIiBUaGUgbWVhbmlu ZyBvZiB0aGUgb3BlcmF0b3ItZGVmaW5lZCBzdWItVExWIGlzIHRvdGFsbHkgb3BhcXVlIHRvIE9T UEYNCiAgIGFuZCBpcyBkZWZpbmVkIGJ5IHRoZSBuZXR3b3JrIGxvY2FsIHBvbGljeSBhbmQgaXMg Y29udHJvbGxlZCB2aWENCiAgIGNvbmZpZ3VyYXRpb24uICAiDQoNCkhvdyBpbnRlcm9wZXJhYmls aXR5IGlzIGFjaGlldmVkIGlzIG5vdCBhZGRyZXNzZWQgYXQgYWxsLg0KDQpJUy1JUyBoYXMgdGFr ZW4gYSBtdWNoIG1vcmUgc3RyaW5nZW50IGFwcHJvYWNoIHRvIGEgc2ltaWxhciByZXF1ZXN0LiAJ DQpSRkMgNjgyMyAoR0VOQVBQKSByZXF1aXJlcyB0aGF0IGluZm9ybWF0aW9uIHNlbnQgaW4gdGhl IGdlbmVyaWMgY29udGFpbmVyIFRMViBNVVNUIGJlIGJhc2VkIG9uIGEgcHVibGljIHNwZWNpZmlj YXRpb24gLSBhbmQgdGhhdCBhbiBhcHBsaWNhdGlvbiBzcGVjaWZpYyBJRCBmb3IgdGhlIGFwcGxp Y2F0aW9uIHVzaW5nIHRoaXMgbWVjaGFuaXNtIGJlIGFzc2lnbmVkIGJ5IElBTkEuIFRoaXMgYWRk cmVzc2VzIHRoZSBpbnRlcm9wZXJhYmlsaXR5IGlzc3VlLg0KR0VOQVBQIGZ1cnRoZXIgc3BlY2lm aWVzIHRoYXQgc3VjaCBpbmZvcm1hdGlvbiBTSE9VTEQgYmUgYWR2ZXJ0aXNlZCBieSBhIHNlcGFy YXRlIGluc3RhbmNlIG9mIHRoZSByb3V0aW5nIHByb3RvY29sIChhcyBzcGVjaWZpZWQgaW4gUkZD IDY4MjIoTUkpKSBzbyBhcyB0byBtaW5pbWl6ZSB0aGUgaW1wYWN0IG9mIHRoZSBhcHBsaWNhdGlv biBpbmZvcm1hdGlvbiBmbG9vZGluZyBvbiB0aGUgcGVyZm9ybWFuY2Ugb2YgdGhlIHJvdXRpbmcg cHJvdG9jb2wuDQoNCldpdGhvdXQgYWRkcmVzc2luZyBib3RoIG9mIHRoZXNlIGlzc3VlcyBJIGNh bm5vdCBzdXBwb3J0IHRoZSBkcmFmdC4NCg0KICAgTGVzDQoNCg0KPiAtLS0tLU9yaWdpbmFsIE1l c3NhZ2UtLS0tLQ0KPiBGcm9tOiBPU1BGIFttYWlsdG86b3NwZi1ib3VuY2VzQGlldGYub3JnXSBP biBCZWhhbGYgT2YgQWNlZSBMaW5kZW0NCj4gKGFjZWUpDQo+IFNlbnQ6IFdlZG5lc2RheSwgTWFy Y2ggMTYsIDIwMTYgNzowOSBQTQ0KPiBUbzogT1NQRiBXRyBMaXN0DQo+IFN1YmplY3Q6IFtPU1BG XSBXRyBBZG9wdGlvbiBQb2xsIGZvciAiVXNpbmcgT3BlcmF0b3ItZGVmaW5lZCBUTFZzIGZvciBB Z2lsZQ0KPiBTZXJ2aWNlIERlcGxveW1lbnQiDQo+IA0KPiBXZeKAmXZlIGRpc2N1c3NlZCB0aGlz IGRyYWZ0IGEgbnVtYmVyIG9mIHRpbWVzLiBJbiBteSBvcGluaW9uLCBpdCBzZWVtcyBsaWtlIGEN Cj4gdXNlZnVsIG1lY2hhbmlzbSBpZiBvbmUgZW52aXNpb25zIGEgZ2VuZXJhbGl6ZWQgQVBJIGJl dHdlZW4gT1NQRiBhbmQgdXNlcg0KPiBhbmQgdGhpcmQtcGFydHkgYXBwbGljYXRpb25zIHRvIGNv bnZleSBhcHBsaWNhdGlvbi1zcGVjaWZpYyBpbmZvcm1hdGlvbg0KPiBsZWFybmVkIGZyb20gb3Ro ZXIgT1NQRiByb3V0ZXJzLiBJbiBtYW55IHJlc3BlY3RzLCB0aGlzIGhhcyBhbHJlYWR5IGJlZW4N Cj4gZW52aXNpb25lZCBmb3IgT1NQRiBOb2RlIFRhZ3MuIFBsZWFzZSBpbmRpY2F0ZSB5b3VyIG9w aW5pb24gb24gdGhpcyBkcmFmdA0KPiBiZWZvcmUgTWFyY2ggMzFzdCwgMjAxNi4NCj4gDQo+IFRo YW5rcywNCj4gQWNlZQ0KPiANCj4gX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19f X19fX19fX19fX18NCj4gT1NQRiBtYWlsaW5nIGxpc3QNCj4gT1NQRkBpZXRmLm9yZw0KPiBodHRw czovL3d3dy5pZXRmLm9yZy9tYWlsbWFuL2xpc3RpbmZvL29zcGYNCg== From nobody Thu Mar 17 00:18:01 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ospf@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ospf@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 17F0D12DBB4 for ; Thu, 17 Mar 2016 00:18:00 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -14.522 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.522 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ts98Dslw0CGk for ; Thu, 17 Mar 2016 00:17:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from aer-iport-4.cisco.com (aer-iport-4.cisco.com [173.38.203.54]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CECB012D6AC for ; Thu, 17 Mar 2016 00:17:57 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=2393; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1458199078; x=1459408678; h=message-id:date:from:mime-version:to:subject:references: in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=bnfA1eXpEYBU9JrJeee/hXmqq5QJkybZ/3w3UJs1qIA=; b=QjJcgDtsy+nrHdeb/wiPShm9pc9qTWZoXsoBbOoUGyahuCcnKZN5sA5v dHMlY1fHYWha5YCYMCvSzTw3eYeoSZZzpDyGG65fabgmKjM4Daua4vA6j tBzQaGnFGqrPPtdJrXpZJybTy2Ti4Fofn9Aez10AxBvaIW5KAJBCrSvkM g=; X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.24,348,1454976000"; d="scan'208";a="636325529" Received: from aer-iport-nat.cisco.com (HELO aer-core-4.cisco.com) ([173.38.203.22]) by aer-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 17 Mar 2016 07:17:56 +0000 Received: from [10.60.140.55] (ams-ppsenak-nitro6.cisco.com [10.60.140.55]) by aer-core-4.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id u2H7HtZH016793; Thu, 17 Mar 2016 07:17:55 GMT Message-ID: <56EA5A23.6020807@cisco.com> Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2016 08:17:55 +0100 From: Peter Psenak User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.8; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.4.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" , "Acee Lindem (acee)" , OSPF WG List References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Archived-At: Subject: Re: [OSPF] WG Adoption Poll for "Using Operator-defined TLVs for Agile Service Deployment" X-BeenThere: ospf@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: The Official IETF OSPG WG Mailing List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2016 07:18:00 -0000 I agree with Les and share the same concerns. Peter On 3/17/16 05:40 , Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) wrote: > My opinion of the draft has not changed. > > It is defining a way to utilize OSPF to send application information - which is not something the protocol should be used to do. > Further, it leaves definition of the new codepoints and formats of the information advertised completely unspecified - the latest draft revision states: > > " The meaning of the operator-defined sub-TLV is totally opaque to OSPF > and is defined by the network local policy and is controlled via > configuration. " > > How interoperability is achieved is not addressed at all. > > IS-IS has taken a much more stringent approach to a similar request. > RFC 6823 (GENAPP) requires that information sent in the generic container TLV MUST be based on a public specification - and that an application specific ID for the application using this mechanism be assigned by IANA. This addresses the interoperability issue. > GENAPP further specifies that such information SHOULD be advertised by a separate instance of the routing protocol (as specified in RFC 6822(MI)) so as to minimize the impact of the application information flooding on the performance of the routing protocol. > > Without addressing both of these issues I cannot support the draft. > > Les > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: OSPF [mailto:ospf-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Acee Lindem >> (acee) >> Sent: Wednesday, March 16, 2016 7:09 PM >> To: OSPF WG List >> Subject: [OSPF] WG Adoption Poll for "Using Operator-defined TLVs for Agile >> Service Deployment" >> >> We’ve discussed this draft a number of times. In my opinion, it seems like a >> useful mechanism if one envisions a generalized API between OSPF and user >> and third-party applications to convey application-specific information >> learned from other OSPF routers. In many respects, this has already been >> envisioned for OSPF Node Tags. Please indicate your opinion on this draft >> before March 31st, 2016. >> >> Thanks, >> Acee >> >> _______________________________________________ >> OSPF mailing list >> OSPF@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf > _______________________________________________ > OSPF mailing list > OSPF@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf > From nobody Thu Mar 17 12:29:58 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ospf@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ospf@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EE69D12D644 for ; Thu, 17 Mar 2016 12:29:52 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.918 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.918 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RDNS_DYNAMIC=0.982] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id fOJ_JkN6L9EP for ; Thu, 17 Mar 2016 12:29:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from zeta2.ch (zux172-086.adsl.green.ch [80.254.172.86]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7392912D614 for ; Thu, 17 Mar 2016 12:29:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from www.zeta2.ch (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (Authenticated sender: prz) by zeta2.ch (Postfix) with ESMTPA id D9E5F2166C; Thu, 17 Mar 2016 20:29:44 +0100 (CET) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2016 12:29:44 -0700 From: prz To: Peter Psenak In-Reply-To: <56EA5A23.6020807@cisco.com> References: <56EA5A23.6020807@cisco.com> Message-ID: <3fc89c87056187cfa0908a07ed4c9850@zeta2.ch> X-Sender: prz@zeta2.ch User-Agent: Roundcube Webmail/0.4.2 X-MailScanner-ID: D9E5F2166C.A46DA X-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-MailScanner-SpamScore: s X-MailScanner-From: prz@zeta2.ch Archived-At: Cc: OSPF WG List Subject: Re: [OSPF] WG Adoption Poll for "Using Operator-defined TLVs for Agile Service Deployment" X-BeenThere: ospf@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: The Official IETF OSPG WG Mailing List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2016 19:29:53 -0000 +1 to Peter's, Les's opinion here (as individual, no hat, not even a surgical mask, Acee ;-) ... --- tony On Thu, 17 Mar 2016 08:17:55 +0100, Peter Psenak wrote: > I agree with Les and share the same concerns. > > Peter > > On 3/17/16 05:40 , Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) wrote: >> My opinion of the draft has not changed. >> >> It is defining a way to utilize OSPF to send application information >> - which is not something the protocol should be used to do. >> Further, it leaves definition of the new codepoints and formats of >> the information advertised completely unspecified - the latest draft >> revision states: >> >> " The meaning of the operator-defined sub-TLV is totally opaque to >> OSPF >> and is defined by the network local policy and is controlled via >> configuration. " >> >> How interoperability is achieved is not addressed at all. >> >> IS-IS has taken a much more stringent approach to a similar request. >> RFC 6823 (GENAPP) requires that information sent in the generic >> container TLV MUST be based on a public specification - and that an >> application specific ID for the application using this mechanism be >> assigned by IANA. This addresses the interoperability issue. >> GENAPP further specifies that such information SHOULD be advertised >> by a separate instance of the routing protocol (as specified in RFC >> 6822(MI)) so as to minimize the impact of the application information >> flooding on the performance of the routing protocol. >> >> Without addressing both of these issues I cannot support the draft. >> >> Les >> >> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: OSPF [mailto:ospf-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Acee Lindem >>> (acee) >>> Sent: Wednesday, March 16, 2016 7:09 PM >>> To: OSPF WG List >>> Subject: [OSPF] WG Adoption Poll for "Using Operator-defined TLVs >>> for Agile >>> Service Deployment" >>> >>> We’ve discussed this draft a number of times. In my opinion, it >>> seems like a >>> useful mechanism if one envisions a generalized API between OSPF >>> and user >>> and third-party applications to convey application-specific >>> information >>> learned from other OSPF routers. In many respects, this has already >>> been >>> envisioned for OSPF Node Tags. Please indicate your opinion on this >>> draft >>> before March 31st, 2016. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Acee >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> OSPF mailing list >>> OSPF@ietf.org >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf >> _______________________________________________ >> OSPF mailing list >> OSPF@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf >> > > _______________________________________________ > OSPF mailing list > OSPF@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf From nobody Thu Mar 17 18:25:07 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ospf@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ospf@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9762512D580 for ; Thu, 17 Mar 2016 18:25:06 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -14.522 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.522 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Z2NMRCOaZdBR for ; Thu, 17 Mar 2016 18:25:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rcdn-iport-8.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-8.cisco.com [173.37.86.79]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A293C12D86C for ; Thu, 17 Mar 2016 18:25:04 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=638; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1458264304; x=1459473904; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:references:in-reply-to: content-id:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=TL+K0y0J5uOLOdv6qJCEmH5o5cYETV5YdGmN3l/ce/A=; b=crvvekAvwrVrtjmgHwCJRCDbH0+sn1YlJnAfGFMKfzTJkEQW5ijPrRvJ Y1bdzz2p+eNQFp6wKSG0qAuyEqUNK/tqtDJnyxezt7KdqCqz4sj+6iIsA raCoD5c/IgVyR/InBM9fWKHMt4hpoaYEG8N5SXeDkZiEtBZCtmdIee6HA s=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0D3AQB+WOtW/5ldJa1eg0VTbga6AwENg?= =?us-ascii?q?W8hhWwCHIEaOBQBAQEBAQEBZCeEQgEBBCMRVQIBCBoCJgICAjAVBgEGAwIEE4g?= =?us-ascii?q?nDrFnj1UBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBEwR8iWaHPIE6BZdVAYVuiBKBTxaES?= =?us-ascii?q?YhYjwIBHgEBQoNlaollfgEBAQ?= X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.24,352,1454976000"; d="scan'208";a="82237642" Received: from rcdn-core-2.cisco.com ([173.37.93.153]) by rcdn-iport-8.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 18 Mar 2016 01:25:03 +0000 Received: from XCH-RTP-013.cisco.com (xch-rtp-013.cisco.com [64.101.220.153]) by rcdn-core-2.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id u2I1P3rI014370 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL) for ; Fri, 18 Mar 2016 01:25:03 GMT Received: from xch-rtp-015.cisco.com (64.101.220.155) by XCH-RTP-013.cisco.com (64.101.220.153) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1104.5; Thu, 17 Mar 2016 21:25:02 -0400 Received: from xch-rtp-015.cisco.com ([64.101.220.155]) by XCH-RTP-015.cisco.com ([64.101.220.155]) with mapi id 15.00.1104.009; Thu, 17 Mar 2016 21:25:03 -0400 From: "Acee Lindem (acee)" To: OSPF WG List Thread-Topic: Publication has been requested for draft-ietf-ospf-ttz-03 Thread-Index: AQHRgLR7EcKsGWm2vE6BJw53dr2Q2J9eeVQA Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2016 01:25:03 +0000 Message-ID: References: <20160318012119.13005.50285.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> In-Reply-To: <20160318012119.13005.50285.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1 x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted x-originating-ip: [10.116.152.196] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-ID: <52CB4556745B1645ADE1291D3837FBA1@emea.cisco.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: Subject: [OSPF] FW: Publication has been requested for draft-ietf-ospf-ttz-03 X-BeenThere: ospf@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: The Official IETF OSPG WG Mailing List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2016 01:25:06 -0000 VGhhbmtzIHRvIHRoZSBhdXRob3JzLCBwcm90b3R5cGUgaW1wbGVtZW50b3JzLCBhbmQgcmV2aWV3 ZXJzIGZvciBicmluZ2luZw0KdGhpcyBpbm5vdmF0aXZlIE9TUEYgbWVjaGFuaXNtIHRocm91Z2gg dG8gZXhwZXJpbWVudGFsIHB1YmxpY2F0aW9uDQpyZXF1ZXN0LiANCg0KQWNlZSBhbmQgQWJoYXkg DQoNCg0KT24gMy8xNy8xNiwgOToyMSBQTSwgIkFjZWUgTGluZGVtIiA8YWNlZUBsaW5kZW0uY29t PiB3cm90ZToNCg0KPkFjZWUgTGluZGVtIGhhcyByZXF1ZXN0ZWQgcHVibGljYXRpb24gb2YgZHJh ZnQtaWV0Zi1vc3BmLXR0ei0wMyBhcw0KPkV4cGVyaW1lbnRhbCBvbiBiZWhhbGYgb2YgdGhlIE9T UEYgd29ya2luZyBncm91cC4NCj4NCj5QbGVhc2UgdmVyaWZ5IHRoZSBkb2N1bWVudCdzIHN0YXRl IGF0DQo+aHR0cHM6Ly9kYXRhdHJhY2tlci5pZXRmLm9yZy9kb2MvZHJhZnQtaWV0Zi1vc3BmLXR0 ei8NCj4NCg0K